https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbr.com/dungeons-and-dragons-items-to-avoid/amp/
D&D: 10 Items To Never Give Players If You Don't Want To Break The Game
So, Google showed me this while I was using the actual Google homepage to get my access to a public network sorted.
And the first goddamned entry pissed me off enough to make comment on this article here. So we're going to go through the items.
I'm not familiar with these, I think they're from 2nd, probably Planescape, but the concept is simple enough. It's a key that turns a doorway into a portal to a specific plane. The article says, nearly verbatim, "don't let these stay in your players' inventories or they become an instant one way trip to another plane whenever they feel like disrupting your game."
Fucking talk to your players. If they feel like "disrupting your game" rather than following the plot you hand them, there's probably a reason. Maybe they're not interested, in which case, try to figure out a reason they would be, and work to keep PC motivations in mind in future adventures. Maybe they're concerned about something they assume you're plot entails. You can reassure them, or, if they're expecting something triggering, maybe you didn't know about their trigger, and you can take it out. Maybe they're just having a bad day and need a light goof off session. Which you can just give them. Your plot will still be good next session. Maybe they have an in character reason they want to go to the other plane. Listen to it.
But if all else fails, you always have the option of saying "look, this is what I have prepared this week. Can we just go with it?"
And honestly, if none of these work, then there's a larger issue that needs to be addressed, like maybe a particular player needs to find a group that is a better fit for them.
"There is very little worse than giving the players a wish granting item without serious restrictions on it. Otherwise, the game is no longer under your control and is now in the hands of the players."
I hate this goddamned view of D&D.
D&D is like BDSM. The person who sends like they're in control is actually the person who is in service to the others. Now, yes, a DM has control over the narrative, the opposition, and what happens to the players. Just like a Dominant has control over a Submissive when the latter is tied up. But just like that Dominant, the DM should be carefully observing the people under their control so that they enjoy relinquishing their control.
Now, should a DM always do whatever their players want? Well, yes and no. Just like a good Dominant listens to what their submissive wants but has a responsibility to not do something that will hurt the Submissive or ruin their enjoyment, say, not flogging their Submissive as hard as they possibly can even if the submissive says that's what they want, and has no obligation to indulge a Submissive in desires that the Dominant will not enjoy, the DM should exercise some executive judgement in the interest of the health of the game and the enjoyment of all participants, including their own.
Now, on the subject of wishes specifically. At least in 3e, wish is a spell in the player's handbook. It is a tool given to the player. Even if you don't include a ring of three wishes in treasure, on a long enough time line, eventually a player will want to make a wish. And I think it is wrong to pull any literal genie dickishness on a player controlled wish. Now, if they're getting a wish from an efreet, and they don't take steps to get the efreet to grant their wish in good faith, I can kind of grudgingly accept some literal genieness there. If they get it from magical item, then it should be a cursed item if you intend to twist their wishes, and they should have an opportunity to discover this fact (and fix the results of a cursed wish).
But ultimately, if you find that players having wishes is negatively impacting the game...
TALK TO YOUR FUCKING PLAYERS
Explain, without accusation, how you feel, and ask if you and the player can work out something similar to what they want, but that, you think, won't negatively impact the game.
You can also do this if you fucked up and the harm has been done. It's a game. There is no reason you can't retcon things. And maybe the player will even be OK with having their thing taken away if you come up with a narratively satisfying enough way to do it!
I once played a Monk in a game, and wielded a great axe in combat, because I was disappointed by the actual damage output of the Monk class. My gm didn't like this, because it didn't mesh with his idea of what a Monk should be. So he took it away by saying that a missed attack hit a volcanic wall and the axe was ruined. I hated this. Fortunately the axe wasn't magical, so I wasn't out a significant resource, but it still sucked. Had he talked to me about it like a reasonable person, and maybe created a scene where a demon disarmed me while mocking my character for "losing their way" or something, I don't know that I would have been more on board with it at the time, we were in high school, but I think the RP moment would have been much more memorable than "I lost my great axe."
8. The Deck of Many Things
Alright, so... this one I sort of agree with. But I think it's wrong to say never use it.
Your players will learn about the deck of many things, possibly from listicles like this one, and then they go look it up. And the way the human brain works, they will pay little attention to the bad things, and a lot of attention to the good things. So they learn about this awesome artifact, and so of course they want to use it in game.
I don't think it's always a mistake to let that happen. I think it just needs to happen in the right game, and you just give your players the rope to hang themselves, so to speak.
I've run into the deck as a player, and sure, bad things happened. I had, if I recall correctly, to make a new character. But, the game was entirely predicated on an isolated dungeon that Teleported people into it. The threats were apparently arbitrary, and it was easy to bring in new characters. I could play around, take one too many cards, say "well fuck," and then roll back in with a new character that let me play with another weird idea I had. It was fun.
I've also used the deck as a DM. In a similar way. I put it in my dungeon that was specifically designed to be a super hard death trap. There was no greater plot, the PCs had been tossed into the dungeon as a sort of combination punishment and trial by fire. So whatever happened, there was no plot to derail. At the start of the game, I told my pcs that the dungeon was designed to kill characters, and if/when that happened, they could introduce a new character by simply being another adventurer who was thrown in separately. There was no lasting consequence to the deck, it was a chance to have fun, whether that fun was "oh man, look at this awesome artifact I got!" or "oh man, my character got eaten by Death!"
I think there's a place for the deck. I think you can even use it in campaigns where it will have consequences. But, as always, talk to your players. Figure out what they want, figure out the kind of story you're all there for.
Don't completely abandon a part of the game, figure out where it fits. (Unless the part of the game in question deals with something you just don't like. That is always valid. I will never allow the Vow of Poverty feat in my games, because I don't like the way it affects the story, and I don't like the effects it has. It's either crippling for a normal adventurer, or makes a correctly built character an untouchable god. And neither is good for the game. But most importantly, I talk to my players about this.)
Alright. I understand what they're saying here. I did have to go double check which one of us was not understanding the weapon ability correctly (it was me. I thought you did have to double 20, by raw, you just have to confirm your critical. At least in 3.x).
Now. In isolation, I think that's kind of fine. Especially if you do house rule the double 20 thing. Yeah, it can make boss fights anticlimactic. But I think that's manageable. Make some bosses immune--undead can't be critted, by raw, so technically you can't affect them with a vorpal blade, but even if you say "of course you can cut a lich's head off with a vorpal blade" that doesn't mean Lord Acerak cares about his head being lopped off. Let them take out the occasional boss with a snicker snack-- letting your players feel like Big Damn Heroic Hell Ass Kings every now and then is good.
And sometimes the opponent they thought was the boss was really just second in command or a puppet, and now they have to fight the real boss, who knows they have a vorpal blade and can account for that (hard for the fighter's vorpal blade to matter if the enemy wizard is 60 ft in the air and throwing fireballs).
Again. I understand, but I think they're being boring.
Another item in not familiar with, though this one sounds like either 4e or 5e, or maybe a late 3.5. Apparently it's a +4 katana with some extras that amount to Brilliant Energy, Haste and mimicking a 3.5e warlock invocation.
Ok. So it sounds like a silly weapon, but... either 5e went hard on the weeaboo, or the writer did. In 3e, a katana was just a masterwork bastard sword. Literally. It did a d10 (I think? That or a d12, but either way, whatever), and if you had a specific proficiency in it beyond martial weapons, you could use it one handed. And using it two handed just let you add half again your strength bonus to damage. It's nothing to write home about. Hell, there's a copy pasta meme about weeaboos saying the 3e katana was unrealistically not special.
Anyway. So a +4 Brilliant Energy Haste Katana that let's you Teleport a short distance and leave an illusory double. It's the Katana of Kurosawa. A little silly, but I don't mind a little silliness in my games if someone wants to play an anime samurai.
Can this be disruptive? I suppose. But that's assuming that the caster isn't blowing enemies away with dick shaped eldritch blasts, stun locking them into an area of damaging darkness that you're running a bit more silly than you really need to, defenestrating them with a single well angled repelling blast, or using Fireball's 600+' range to be the world's most devastating sniper (I've done all but the last, all with the same character). This is another case of "if this is causing a problem, something weird is going on. Talk to your players, or maybe revise the challenges your throwing at them."
And if someone wants to be an anime swordfighter, and no one else has a problem with this, lean into it. Let them have their one on one dramatic duels while the party takes on the enemy mooks and companions.
Ok, now you're fucking with me.
I have never heard of a mace of disruption being a problem.
I think the writer of this article just doesn't know how to craft encounters.
Which is absolutely valid, it's an art you learn, and I'm still learning it myself.
But that's the problem. Not the Mace of Disruption.
(Pro tip on encounters- sometimes its OK to set up an encounter where you can add enemies that were "totally always there, just hiding" as needed so it doesn't end too soon. Don't do this all the time, but it's OK for your climax battle)
Yes. Players can do silly things like eviscerate monsters with clever use of an immovable rod.
Honestly any monster large enough that players can get it inside, can probably make the strength check to move it (DC 30 in 3.x. Maybe 5e got rid of this, I don't know).
This isn't "The Dragon Ginsu" this is "a really disgusting, lesser entangle."
As to their points about rods being used for ladders and stopping falls... good. Reward your clever players for having ideas that are 30 years old.
Yeah. This is getting silly. The key advantage to vampiric blades is action economy and resource management. That's all. Sure, it means combat is a little less dangerous for the person with the vampiric blade. But that's basically all. It doesn't make things a nightmare for the gm, because the gm doesn't need to track player hp. Let your players worry about their own hp.
Vampiric blades are fine. This person is just stuck on a particular variety of fight, where the party is fighting a single opponent.
That style of fight has its place, but it's just generally a bad idea.
They're concerned about the wrong thing. And overly so. And they once again use the term munchkin. Incorrectly.
Ok, so, staff of the magi. First, you should actually be concerned about the retributive strike. That can fuck things up. But not a lot, because if you do it, you lose your artifact staff.
Even then, it's just a big explosion, and flings the staff's owner to a random plane. It's kinda not a big deal, it's what I call an "oh shit" button. A thing you can do when combat has gone seriously wrong and you need to end it.
The spells it has- well, it's an artifact. Your players should really only have it when they're high enough level that planeshift on a stick is a convenience, not super powerful.
The charges- at least in 3.x, the staff could be overcharged. If it goes over 50 charges, it explodes like a retributive strike. And you don't know how many charges its absorbing nectar the staff doesn't communicate this in any way. So you have to be careful about lowering your spell resistance to charge the staff up.
Can a wizard recharge their staff of the magi on downtime days? Sure. But really that means that they begin adventures with a full staff, and if the party rests for a day so the wizard can play with his staff, there's probably monsters wandering around that will come see them about their loitering.
Another item I'm not familiar with but I take it they're from Dragonlance. Ok, fine.
And apparently they do damage equal to the wielder's max hp.
This entry makes me think the writer has not played D&D.
"Dragons might have some high AC ratings, but their overall health isn't goint to stand up to triple digits worth of damage at higher levels"
In 3.x, a 20th level barbarian who focused on increasing their Con, somehow rolled maximum hit points every level, and went out of their way to use five wishes to increase their Con along the way on top of having the highest starting Con you can manage would have... *calculating* ok, 440 hp. And that's not taking into account the possibility of taking a toughness feat every opportunity.
Alright. Sure. Maybe a 20th level character who is optimized for it can have 400 hp and ruin a dragon's day with a true dragon Lance.
I feel two ways about this idea-
1- this is another reason no one should play Dragonlance
2- this is another reason to not make your big climax fights a single out-of-the-manual enemy.
On the setting, I just don't like it. Play what you want. On the fights, seriously. Use multiple enemies. Make the final boss of your campaign saga a truly immense dragon with so many hp that the Lance is merely convenient and not definitive. Don't let Aichpeejor the Barbarian Panzer get into melee with the opponent that can fly and breath fire.
Ultimately, this list is more of a "if you don't know what you're doing yet, maybe avoid these things" list. Any veteran DM knows, or should, how to make these not blow up the campaign.
A lot of people don't understand the term. They think munchkin, power gamer, and minmaxer are interchangeable.
A power gamer is someone who plays to feel powerful. They like big numbers, they like wiping the floor with enemies. So long as no one else has a problem with combat being their time to shine, this is fine.
A minmaxer is similar, they like big numbers. But it's about feeling competent, not powerful. They want to play the best Thief they can, so they maximize their Stealth and Disable Device, and minimize their risks in this area, while also minimizing their ability to handle things they're not interested in. Could be a Rogue, a fighter, a wizard, whatever. They want a competent character, and they're OK with being not competent in things they aren't interested in doing. Again, so long as no one else has a problem with this player having their area to shine in, this is fine.
A munchkin is a cheater. They stay just short of writing down whatever numbers they want, because they need a refuge of rules and interpretations to hide behind if called out. But ultimately, they are the people who do things like "I put the Flaming ability on my sword five times because the rules don't say I can't" and "no, seriously, I just rolled really well for hit points at every level." The problem with munchkins is not overpowered weapons. The problem is the immature cheater who is trying to get one over on you because they don't care about anyone else's fun.
Have I been there? Well, sort of. I used pretty libertine approaches with the magic item rules when I played an artificer. But I always ran everything by the GM and explained what I was doing. That was how I got away with it. I knew the GM was not as experienced as me, and didn't know to carefully look at the rules for where I was bending them or not interpreting them in good faith. But also, I didn't keep this to myself and I helped the party out with my ... "only not munchkinly because I was adhering to the book" use of the rules. It did not, so far as I'm aware, cause problems. But I'm also aware that part of the reason for this is because the other players were not very invested in the game (they were more the "d&d is an excuse to hang out" type of players). My one friend who was a invested in the game was aware of what I was doing, and was pretty clear that he would not let fly in his game, but also understood it wasn't his game, so he was, probably grudgingly, ok with it. But I also recognize that maybe I was showing everyone up and that led to their lesser interest.
We've all got our sins. I try to not do that stuff anymore, unless I need to use my dark powers to counter a game that is overly lethal.
